School Board Examining idea of Turf Field

Moderator: The Merrimack Volunteer Moderators

Re: School Board Examining idea of Turf Field

Postby TonyRichardson » Wed Mar 21, 2012 4:30 pm

Stan Heinrich wrote:I will suggest again you read the report and/or come to a meeting before making uneducated statements.
There is a NEED for a new SAU/SPED office. If you had bothered to read that report you would clearly see that.
While you may HATE to spend any money you cannot stay in the stone age forever.
As far as a dome goes, the school board liasion has suggested it.
As a committee we decided against suggesting it because it cost way too much money.
Have a nice day!


Nicely done reply Stan, you managed an insult in each of the first three lines.

Of course you still have not said just what you and/or the committee think this field will be used for in the dead of winter.

Take all the time you need.
Liberalism - What happens when emotional reactions are confused with and substituted for facts and reason.
TonyRichardson
 
Posts: 358
Joined: Fri May 22, 2009 6:01 pm

Re: School Board Examining idea of Turf Field

Postby Fitzie » Fri Mar 30, 2012 11:50 am

timothy dutton wrote:And, You are involved in this conversation Why?



Sorry...I've been away.

I'm involved in the conversation because although the field is located in MMK the grass vs turf question is asked....hundreds of times a year....throughout the country. My children have played on and experienced the positives and negatives of both and I thought that might just qualify me commenting on the debate. I guess you see it otherwise and are more interested (as many people here are) in my address.

I have to say Tim that given your detailed intial post the quality and content of this disaster is lacking. Makes me think you did actually just copy something from a website somewhere. You provided a laundry list of half-truths and scary stories about synthetic fields, I responded with a counter based on my personal experience....and you asked why I'm involved the the conversation. OK.....I guess.

Jeannine, to some extent I do find it entertaining.
Fitzie
 
Posts: 236
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2011 12:04 pm

Re: School Board Examining idea of Turf Field

Postby Stan Heinrich » Fri Mar 30, 2012 2:19 pm

I did not make any insults in the first 3 lines of my previous post.
I spoke the TRUTH!

In answer to your question about use in the winter, because it can be cleared off from snow it can be used for a variety of sports activities.
I also suggest you listen to what the school districts athletic director has said about a synthetic turf field.
Enjoy this nice weather.
Stan Heinrich
 
Posts: 427
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 10:44 pm

Re: School Board Examining idea of Turf Field

Postby TonyRichardson » Sat Mar 31, 2012 6:00 am

Stan Heinrich wrote:I did not make any insults in the first 3 lines of my previous post.
I spoke the TRUTH!

In answer to your question about use in the winter, because it can be cleared off from snow it can be used for a variety of sports activities.
I also suggest you listen to what the school districts athletic director has said about a synthetic turf field.
Enjoy this nice weather.


Actually Stan your post is insulting both overtly and by implication, try reading it again.

Is the field used now during the winter? If so for what?

"Becaue it can be" is a reason to clmb a mountain, not a reason to spend $1Million+.
"A variety of sports activities" is a vague answer, lets hear specifics.
Liberalism - What happens when emotional reactions are confused with and substituted for facts and reason.
TonyRichardson
 
Posts: 358
Joined: Fri May 22, 2009 6:01 pm

Re: School Board Examining idea of Turf Field

Postby Fitzie » Mon Apr 02, 2012 12:27 pm

Tony, how about this:

The student-athletes of MMK HS (or Anytown USA HS) should have adequate facilities to participate in Class L and the parents (who are also taxpayers by the way) are within their rights to expect as much. If its not synthetic turf, then a natural (grass) field capable of handling the programs should be commissioned.

Opinion?
Fitzie
 
Posts: 236
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2011 12:04 pm

Re: School Board Examining idea of Turf Field

Postby TonyRichardson » Mon Apr 02, 2012 1:29 pm

Fitzie wrote:Tony, how about this:

The student-athletes of MMK HS (or Anytown USA HS) should have adequate facilities to participate in Class L and the parents (who are also taxpayers by the way) are within their rights to expect as much. If its not synthetic turf, then a natural (grass) field capable of handling the programs should be commissioned.

Opinion?


If the parents and/or corporate sponsors are willing to foot the bill go for it.

Expecting funding from the tax base for every single thing that comes down the pike is unrealistic and frankly purely selfish on the parent's parts.
If you want something extra for your kids pay for it yourself.

Extracurricular activites are called that for a reason and the parents should be footing the bill.
Sports are not a curriculum item, they are extracurricular.

Sports are good and have their place, but it is ridiculous for every town to expect to fund expensive facilities and infractructure for every single sport no matter how few people are involved in it.

Expecting ever increasing funding from the tax base for whatever new thing someone comes up with is reprehensible.
It is identical to the out of control spending on the federal level, just on a much smaller scale.

Also, not all parents are taxpayers under the constraints of funding the school district.

If they rent they do not pay property taxes directly, condos pay property taxes at a lower rate than traditional homes.
In each case they are impacted to a lesser extent or not at all by tax increases from rising school budgets.
Consequently there is less concern on their part over the cost.
Liberalism - What happens when emotional reactions are confused with and substituted for facts and reason.
TonyRichardson
 
Posts: 358
Joined: Fri May 22, 2009 6:01 pm

Re: School Board Examining idea of Turf Field

Postby Fitzie » Mon Apr 02, 2012 2:56 pm

TonyRichardson wrote:
Fitzie wrote:Tony, how about this:

The student-athletes of MMK HS (or Anytown USA HS) should have adequate facilities to participate in Class L and the parents (who are also taxpayers by the way) are within their rights to expect as much. If its not synthetic turf, then a natural (grass) field capable of handling the programs should be commissioned.

Opinion?


If the parents and/or corporate sponsors are willing to foot the bill go for it.

Expecting funding from the tax base for every single thing that comes down the pike is unrealistic and frankly purely selfish on the parent's parts.
If you want something extra for your kids pay for it yourself.

Extracurricular activites are called that for a reason and the parents should be footing the bill.
Sports are not a curriculum item, they are extracurricular.

Sports are good and have their place, but it is ridiculous for every town to expect to fund expensive facilities and infractructure for every single sport no matter how few people are involved in it.

Expecting ever increasing funding from the tax base for whatever new thing someone comes up with is reprehensible.
It is identical to the out of control spending on the federal level, just on a much smaller scale.

Also, not all parents are taxpayers under the constraints of funding the school district.

If they rent they do not pay property taxes directly, condos pay property taxes at a lower rate than traditional homes.
In each case they are impacted to a lesser extent or not at all by tax increases from rising school budgets.
Consequently there is less concern on their part over the cost.


I guess Tony we just see the matter differently. Its a field, its not a welfare check or free healthcare. I'm guessing I also view sports as having more importance than you do but that's OK, people are different. Lemme ask you.....at what point exactly would you see fit to replace something like a playing field? I'm trying to understand what you see as acceptable so I can understand what you see as not acceptable.

As far as the condo argument goes, I killed that moths ago when I showed that many "traditional" homes are valued (and taxed) less than many condos. Sure, the average value may be higher but there are probably hundreds of condos in MMK that value higher than traditional homes. Maybe thousands. But that's a different argument.
Fitzie
 
Posts: 236
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2011 12:04 pm

Re: School Board Examining idea of Turf Field

Postby Fitzie » Mon Apr 02, 2012 3:06 pm

Sorry Tony, just had another thought.

How does a new field differ in terms of usage or importance from the repaving of a side street? I'm thinking they're very similar in that a small percentage of the taxpayers (or their offspring) will use either but I've never heard anyone scream bloddy murder when the town spends money to repave or repair a secondary road or bridge. Now this will make everyone mad but that's OK.....

The idea of a synthetic field doesn't necessarily bother people....its the fact that its a synthetic field for "the school" that bothers people. Jeannine, you can now yell at me. :D
Fitzie
 
Posts: 236
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2011 12:04 pm

Re: School Board Examining idea of Turf Field

Postby TonyRichardson » Mon Apr 02, 2012 4:08 pm

Yes we disagree on this Fitzie

Repair the field with natural grass fine, spend over $1m for artificial turf not fine, at least not for me.

I probably do value sports less than you do, by the same token you obviously value people paying the freight on their own desires less than I do.


Here's a question for you Fitzie...Why are YOU advocating we spend $1M+ when you dont live in town and won't be paying the bill?

Its bad enough the people here in town are busily trying to reach into my pocket, I don't much care for you helping them.


You and I have been on the same side on some issues and the opposite sides on others, this is obviously an opposite side issue.

We'll have to disagree on the condo issue too, you didn't "kill it" it died a death for two reasons, the chasm in opinion was never going to change like so many other issues, and it was getting too close to political discussion for the keepers of this forum.
Liberalism - What happens when emotional reactions are confused with and substituted for facts and reason.
TonyRichardson
 
Posts: 358
Joined: Fri May 22, 2009 6:01 pm

Re: School Board Examining idea of Turf Field

Postby Fitzie » Tue Apr 03, 2012 8:50 am

TonyRichardson wrote:Yes we disagree on this Fitzie

Repair the field with natural grass fine, spend over $1m for artificial turf not fine, at least not for me.

I probably do value sports less than you do, by the same token you obviously value people paying the freight on their own desires less than I do.


Here's a question for you Fitzie...Why are YOU advocating we spend $1M+ when you dont live in town and won't be paying the bill?

Its bad enough the people here in town are busily trying to reach into my pocket, I don't much care for you helping them.


You and I have been on the same side on some issues and the opposite sides on others, this is obviously an opposite side issue.

We'll have to disagree on the condo issue too, you didn't "kill it" it died a death for two reasons, the chasm in opinion was never going to change like so many other issues, and it was getting too close to political discussion for the keepers of this forum.


Tony, you really need to read my comments more carefully. It'd also be wonderful if you didn't duck questions that leave you in a difficult position. I'll ask again: How does this issue differ from fixing a secondary road that 95% of the residents will never, ever drive on and at what level of disrepair would you see fit to replace any given playing field? There aren't difficult questions Tony and I asked them with no malice whatsoever.

Anyway, my initial response was to a posting which had zero basis in fact relating to turf fields. None. It wouldn't have mattered what the topic was, when I see clearly biased crap and can offer an alternate opinion I do so. I've already explained why I feel my comments have merit regardless of my address and will not do so for a 3rd time. Go back and read the previous postings for clarity on my intent and interest.

Secondly, I am not advocating one solution over another. What I am advocationg however is A F_ING solution of some kind to an issue that's been present since I moved there 18 years ago. Its not a new issue Tony. What I said was either fix the grass field (by "fix" I don't mean a temporary solution that gets re-applied year after year after year after year while 50% of your sports are played on abandoned farms) OR....go synthetic and forget about it. What doesn't make any sense (to me at least) is to recognize an issue and then bitch about every possible solution. That's just bitching for the sake of bitching alone.

As far as the condos go....you're correct that I didn't kill it. All I did was point readers to the absolute fact that a great many condos in MMK (or anytonw USA for that matter) are valued and taxed at a higher rate than single family homes. The point is still the same however.
Fitzie
 
Posts: 236
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2011 12:04 pm

Re: School Board Examining idea of Turf Field

Postby TonyRichardson » Tue Apr 03, 2012 10:35 am

Fitzie wrote:
TonyRichardson wrote:Yes we disagree on this Fitzie

Repair the field with natural grass fine, spend over $1m for artificial turf not fine, at least not for me.

I probably do value sports less than you do, by the same token you obviously value people paying the freight on their own desires less than I do.


Here's a question for you Fitzie...Why are YOU advocating we spend $1M+ when you dont live in town and won't be paying the bill?

Its bad enough the people here in town are busily trying to reach into my pocket, I don't much care for you helping them.


You and I have been on the same side on some issues and the opposite sides on others, this is obviously an opposite side issue.

We'll have to disagree on the condo issue too, you didn't "kill it" it died a death for two reasons, the chasm in opinion was never going to change like so many other issues, and it was getting too close to political discussion for the keepers of this forum.


Tony, you really need to read my comments more carefully. It'd also be wonderful if you didn't duck questions that leave you in a difficult position. I'll ask again: How does this issue differ from fixing a secondary road that 95% of the residents will never, ever drive on and at what level of disrepair would you see fit to replace any given playing field? There aren't difficult questions Tony and I asked them with no malice whatsoever.

Anyway, my initial response was to a posting which had zero basis in fact relating to turf fields. None. It wouldn't have mattered what the topic was, when I see clearly biased crap and can offer an alternate opinion I do so. I've already explained why I feel my comments have merit regardless of my address and will not do so for a 3rd time. Go back and read the previous postings for clarity on my intent and interest.

Secondly, I am not advocating one solution over another. What I am advocationg however is A F_ING solution of some kind to an issue that's been present since I moved there 18 years ago. Its not a new issue Tony. What I said was either fix the grass field (by "fix" I don't mean a temporary solution that gets re-applied year after year after year after year while 50% of your sports are played on abandoned farms) OR....go synthetic and forget about it. What doesn't make any sense (to me at least) is to recognize an issue and then bitch about every possible solution. That's just bitching for the sake of bitching alone.

As far as the condos go....you're correct that I didn't kill it. All I did was point readers to the absolute fact that a great many condos in MMK (or anytonw USA for that matter) are valued and taxed at a higher rate than single family homes. The point is still the same however.


I dont duck questions Fitzie, but I'm only going to address so many things in a given post.

(Paraphrase) How is R&R of a school field different than R&R of a side street that only a minority of residents will use?

Answer - Simple, it is broad based infrastructure for all residents, who can in fact use it any time they like, not a sports facility for an extra curricular activity at one school that every resident is NOT allowed to use. Also decent roads, are far more of a requirement to residents in general as well as public works come snow season than a ball field will ever be.

There can be no permanent fix for a sports field whether natural or synthetic, both require maintenance and upkeep. I object to the high cost for the proposal Fitzie, it really is that simple.

Fitzie there is no such thing as absolute facts on taxes much as you might believe to the contrary.
Values change, tax rates change, zoning changes, year to year and sometimes within the same year, it is all mutable and therefore it is not absolute in any way shape or form.
As you know from living here before you get your tax bill twice a year, how often were both of them in a given year the same?

If you have a specific thing you want me to answer Fitzie, highlight it in your post otherwise I'll continue to answer what strikes me at the time.

I will give you that you mentioned either/or for artificial turf or better natural, however that is NOT what is being proposed, only artificial turf.
Artificial turf at a $1M+ cost.
Liberalism - What happens when emotional reactions are confused with and substituted for facts and reason.
TonyRichardson
 
Posts: 358
Joined: Fri May 22, 2009 6:01 pm

Re: School Board Examining idea of Turf Field

Postby Fitzie » Tue Apr 03, 2012 12:38 pm

TonyRichardson wrote:
Fitzie wrote:
TonyRichardson wrote:Yes we disagree on this Fitzie

Repair the field with natural grass fine, spend over $1m for artificial turf not fine, at least not for me.

I probably do value sports less than you do, by the same token you obviously value people paying the freight on their own desires less than I do.


Here's a question for you Fitzie...Why are YOU advocating we spend $1M+ when you dont live in town and won't be paying the bill?

Its bad enough the people here in town are busily trying to reach into my pocket, I don't much care for you helping them.


You and I have been on the same side on some issues and the opposite sides on others, this is obviously an opposite side issue.

We'll have to disagree on the condo issue too, you didn't "kill it" it died a death for two reasons, the chasm in opinion was never going to change like so many other issues, and it was getting too close to political discussion for the keepers of this forum.


Tony, you really need to read my comments more carefully. It'd also be wonderful if you didn't duck questions that leave you in a difficult position. I'll ask again: How does this issue differ from fixing a secondary road that 95% of the residents will never, ever drive on and at what level of disrepair would you see fit to replace any given playing field? There aren't difficult questions Tony and I asked them with no malice whatsoever.

Anyway, my initial response was to a posting which had zero basis in fact relating to turf fields. None. It wouldn't have mattered what the topic was, when I see clearly biased crap and can offer an alternate opinion I do so. I've already explained why I feel my comments have merit regardless of my address and will not do so for a 3rd time. Go back and read the previous postings for clarity on my intent and interest.

Secondly, I am not advocating one solution over another. What I am advocationg however is A F_ING solution of some kind to an issue that's been present since I moved there 18 years ago. Its not a new issue Tony. What I said was either fix the grass field (by "fix" I don't mean a temporary solution that gets re-applied year after year after year after year while 50% of your sports are played on abandoned farms) OR....go synthetic and forget about it. What doesn't make any sense (to me at least) is to recognize an issue and then bitch about every possible solution. That's just bitching for the sake of bitching alone.

As far as the condos go....you're correct that I didn't kill it. All I did was point readers to the absolute fact that a great many condos in MMK (or anytonw USA for that matter) are valued and taxed at a higher rate than single family homes. The point is still the same however.


I dont duck questions Fitzie, but I'm only going to address so many things in a given post.

(Paraphrase) How is R&R of a school field different than R&R of a side street that only a minority of residents will use?

Answer - Simple, it is broad based infrastructure for all residents, who can in fact use it any time they like, not a sports facility for an extra curricular activity at one school that every resident is NOT allowed to use. Also decent roads, are far more of a requirement to residents in general as well as public works come snow season than a ball field will ever be.

There can be no permanent fix for a sports field whether natural or synthetic, both require maintenance and upkeep. I object to the high cost for the proposal Fitzie, it really is that simple.

Fitzie there is no such thing as absolute facts on taxes much as you might believe to the contrary.
Values change, tax rates change, zoning changes, year to year and sometimes within the same year, it is all mutable and therefore it is not absolute in any way shape or form.
As you know from living here before you get your tax bill twice a year, how often were both of them in a given year the same?

If you have a specific thing you want me to answer Fitzie, highlight it in your post otherwise I'll continue to answer what strikes me at the time.

I will give you that you mentioned either/or for artificial turf or better natural, however that is NOT what is being proposed, only artificial turf.
Artificial turf at a $1M+ cost.


Tony,

I couldn't disagree more with your comparison. To me a school field serves a far greater percentage of the residents than a secondary road.

As far as a "fix" goes, true enough but its unfair and unfounded to suggest that a natural field has an expected lifetime approaching anything close to synthetic. Fair is fair......look at the needs, weigh each option's ability to meet the need and then compare the ongoing costs of both while calculating life expectancy. It is folly to suggest that natural fields and synthetic fields require the same level of care. They just don't.

RE tax bills......I honestly didn't pay that much attention. When I moved to NH I recognized the inequity and ultimate failure of a tax system dependent entirely on real estate values. In exchange for this I paid far less up front than I would have back in MA. That's just the way it is. Its funny to think of but in the quandry of "Live Free or Die", NH residents are choosing the latter with this tax structure. Of course making such a statement is viewed as heresy by many lifers but many of these same people would oddly enough benefit from a change in the structure. Anyway, the bills were what they were and I had enough faith in the people reviewing the budgets (like Norman Phillips for example) to believe they were proposing what was best for the community as a whole. What has always struck me as strange is this underlying feeling among many people that the officials who come up with these budgets do so with the aim of pi$$ing people off or are oblivious to the average resident's plight. I just don't think either are true.
Fitzie
 
Posts: 236
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2011 12:04 pm

Re: School Board Examining idea of Turf Field

Postby TonyRichardson » Tue Apr 03, 2012 12:57 pm

Like I said earlier Fitzie, we arent going to agree on this one.

By the way, the secondary road comparison was your example not mine. You asked me the difference between them.

On taxes, I too dislike the current system.

It should be a broad based consumption oriented tax, not income or property based.
That way everyone supports the system.

That would be the dictionary definition of fair and equitable, however once politics get a hold of it the definitions skew beyond recognition.
Liberalism - What happens when emotional reactions are confused with and substituted for facts and reason.
TonyRichardson
 
Posts: 358
Joined: Fri May 22, 2009 6:01 pm

Re: School Board Examining idea of Turf Field

Postby Fitzie » Wed Apr 04, 2012 9:02 am

TonyRichardson wrote:Like I said earlier Fitzie, we arent going to agree on this one.

By the way, the secondary road comparison was your example not mine. You asked me the difference between them.

On taxes, I too dislike the current system.

It should be a broad based consumption oriented tax, not income or property based.
That way everyone supports the system.

That would be the dictionary definition of fair and equitable, however once politics get a hold of it the definitions skew beyond recognition.



Agreed. The current system is almost designed to tax people out of their homes. Costs will always rise no matter how hard one tries to keep them from doing so. It will cost more to run a school one year than it did the previous year (assuming of course the # of students stay the same). It will also cost more to pave a road, haul a ton of trash, run a fire department....pick your topic. While salaries and bennies are the things people focus on what is missed is EVERYTHING outside the control of the community is also increasing and in a very real way driving the community's final costs. I'm talking about the elemental basics here...power, fuel, food, health care and the like. To rely on the value real estate to accommodate this reality is ridiculous....yet we do so.
Fitzie
 
Posts: 236
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2011 12:04 pm

Re: School Board Examining idea of Turf Field

Postby MattPublicover » Wed Apr 04, 2012 7:15 pm

Just for fun, I'm going to weigh in on this. I actually think the issue of spending a significant sum of money on a sports field is an important question, and should be debated passionately but without acrimony. Two key points. One is the fundamental purpose of pubic education. The second is the essence of democratic government.

Public education was extended to the secondary level in the middle part of the 1800s in order to make sure all adults were intellectually competent to vote, since we were one of the first democracies that extended the vote to "all" citizens (not including women and blacks, but that's a different issue). Point is, it was no longer just the wealthy and aristocratic doing the voting, since their kids were getting educated anyway. Everyone needed to know what was going on. Also, as more trades were opening up that required not just manual labor but also education, a well-schooled workforce benefited the nation.

Do we really think football fields are what Horace Mann was thinking about when he proposed public secondary education for all children? Sports do teach valuable life lessons, but are they fundamental to the true mission of public education?

As for the role of democratic government, there are some who believe there are only a very few proper functions of government, and any other action by government is a usurpation. Other people believe that the essence of "government by the people" is that the people have a fundamental right to as much or as little government as they choose to have ... including nice sports fields for their schools.

In a time when people are threatening to cut the school budget to the bone, I would much rather see funding for true education left intact and funding for extracurriculars be the optional spending that gets debated. How about taking funding for all school sports programs out of the budget and put into a warrant article every year? This way, the people can speak separately about how much they value education and how much optional stuff they are willing to be taxed for. If the majority of people want to be taxed for school sports, fine, who but someone opposed to democracy can object? But don't let the fields and the games become the enemies of the desks, the blackboards, textbooks, computers, teacher training, resource officers, guidance counselors ... and the teachers.

Good education or good sports -- we can have both, if we want it. That's democracy. But if we can only have one or the other, which would you choose?
MattPublicover
 
Posts: 81
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2007 4:00 pm

PreviousNext

Return to School Topics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron